Employment Situation NFP Chart Porn
No further words necessary
Year-Over-Year Changes, Employment Components 
Via Jake
Temporary Help Services Employment
Via Bruce Steinberg.net
>
UPDATE II: July 3, 2008 4:25pm
Jake writes: For clarification, calculations in the chart are not percents of percents, but in fact the year over year change in the number of ACTUAL people in:
*The labor force
*Employed
*Unemployed
*Not in labor force
That's hugely helpful. Thanks, Jake
>
UPDATE: July 3, 2008 2:46pm
Political Calculations takes issue with Jake's chart up top (A Lousy Unemployment Chart and Bad Math) -- but I am unconvinced of their argument.
A percentage change of a big number is less than the same percentage change of a smaller number. Hey, that's how percentages work.
Request for assistance: How else would one depict the year-over-year change in a number that is itself a percentage? The goal is to convey information quickly and accurately.
I'm all ears for suggestions . . .
~~~
Thursday, July 03, 2008 | 11:00 AM | Permalink
| Comments (26)
| TrackBack (0)
add to de.li.cious | 
digg this! | 
add to technorati | 
email this post
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/763/30845454
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Employment Situation NFP Chart Porn:
Comments
Kudlow debating Reich now, saying he sees no signs of recession. If Obama gets elected, he will turn from Goldilocks Larry to Tinfoil Hat Larry...I guarantee it. What Bush will do is tank the economy the minute Obama gets elected...they'll pull the plug on all positive spin.
Posted by: Steve Barry | Jul 3, 2008 11:11:15 AM
Now they are going to debate a second stimulus in a few minutes. Maybe I'm real cycnical or flunked macroeconomics...this stimulus is just the government giving some money back that they took...so now the government has a bigger deficit and borrows more money, casuing rates to rise, blunting the stimulus and spiking oil even more. The only true stimulus should be productivity gains. This is just moving money from the left hand to the right.
Posted by: Steve Barry | Jul 3, 2008 11:17:00 AM
just what we need.....a second check that will be deposited to the accounts of the oilmen.
The folly of that is just disgusting.
Ciao
MS
Posted by: michael schumacher | Jul 3, 2008 11:18:42 AM
MS,
Totally agree...that stimulus check did nothing more than monetize the recent gains in oil.
Posted by: Steve Barry | Jul 3, 2008 11:20:58 AM
bill gross thinks we need $500 billon in government spending. Where does the country spend it. A 3rd-4th stimulus check. I was surprised buy how much some stocks are down in this economy like GE. That is a pretty good, slow growing company.
Posted by: Theinvestingspeculator | Jul 3, 2008 11:29:38 AM
This chart shows the beginning of something big. Baby boomers are starting to retire. We are entering an era of perpetual low unemployment as huge numbers leave work force. Big impact on:
- wage pressure - big swaths of industry will have job openings for qualified candidates that can't get filled
- immigration - who is going to take care of all these retired folks - while the rest of us work? I bet we import care givers by the boat load.
- GDP - what happens when 15% of your economy stops getting a paycheck?
- Stock prices - what happens when 15% of your market become risk averse income oriented investors? They live of selling stocks etc.
Posted by: kurt milne | Jul 3, 2008 11:36:18 AM
Right Kurt...our biggest wage owners who are retiring also automatically pour a few percent of their paychecks into 401ks that buy stock every month.
Posted by: Steve Barry | Jul 3, 2008 11:44:31 AM
I just spent 60 seconds listing to Reich & Kudlow. I couldn't take any more. Both those guys are a waste of electrons on my TV set. Why doesn't CNBC remove both clowns from the airways. Both perpetuate ignorance and glorify stupidity; asking us to substitute political catechisms for logic, brains, and education. They just make me shudder, make my brain feel unclean, and make me feel like a minute of my life was stolen by CNBC on false pretenses. This kills me. I used to like Kudlow not so very long ago. Now, he just comes across as desperate for credibility. Reich has always been a fool.
CNBC Asia looks great. Maybe they should duplicate it on the day show.
Posted by: cinefoz | Jul 3, 2008 11:44:55 AM
There are rumors about margin req's hike on oil and maybe some other commodities after the close today...
Posted by: mhm | Jul 3, 2008 12:12:53 PM
Indy Mac now 66 cents? Isn't that virtually guaranteeing BK? Could be Fed Bailout Monday when markets open.
Posted by: Steve Barry | Jul 3, 2008 12:14:01 PM
Right... boomers who have lost most of their home wealth and lots of their 401K value and have no health insurance if they retire are retiring on ... what exactly?
Dream on.
Posted by: donna | Jul 3, 2008 1:24:14 PM
Steve, good point on retirees and 401 K's.
Donna, you are right that some(many?) who planned to retire will find they can not, but plenty still will be able to(Hint: It is a Big group of folks)
Posted by: uncool | Jul 3, 2008 2:55:38 PM
"How else would one depict the year-over-year change in a number that is itself a percentage?"
Percentage points. Like basis points: ECB hike rate by .25 instead of ~6%. Everybody on here can understand that.
Posted by: mhm | Jul 3, 2008 3:15:49 PM
Percentages of percentages. Hmm....
That's 1/100*1/100 = 1/10,000 as a basis point. Why not adopt the scientific standard of parts per million (PPM)? One point up is 100 PPM, which if nothing else will alarm the uninformed. Who, incidentally, seem to be lamentably abundant of late.
Posted by: evanesce | Jul 3, 2008 3:26:55 PM
Back to Barry's presentation question:
It make sense to convert the other three number to per cent change but since unemployment rate is already a percentage, just report the percentage change ( e.g. 1.5% ) rather than calculating the percentage change of the percent (e.g. 25%).
Alternatively, if you want to keep the percent change in the unemployment rate (or percent), be fair about it and convert the other numbers to percentages too and then plot the percent changes in each of those percentages. So, convert NILF to a percent of (LF + NILF) and you have a number which is comparable to the unempoyment rate. Do that for last year, this year and then chart the percent increase in the two percentages.
Posted by: Dave in Seattle | Jul 3, 2008 3:43:54 PM
For clarification, calculations in the chart are not percents of percents, but in fact the year over year change in the number of ACTUAL people in:
*The labor force
*Employed
*Unemployed
*Not in labor force
Posted by: Jake | Jul 3, 2008 3:59:50 PM
How else would one depict the year-over-year change in a number that is itself a percentage? The goal is to convey information quickly and accurately.
You would more properly use the difference between the two percentages. Alternatively, you would chart the actual numbers or the percentages side by side - the scale of any changes would be readily apparent.
As to why percentage changes of percentages doesn't past muster, it might help illustrate things if we consider additional data points. Let's say unemployment is rising by 1% of the labor force every year, which we'll assume to be constant. Starting at 5% unemployment, here's what the year-over-year percentage changes would record:
Year Unemployment Rate YOY % change of % 0 5% N/A 1 6% 20.0% 2 7% 16.7% 3 8% 14.3% 4 9% 12.5% 5 10% 11.1%
If we go by the percentage change of the percentage, it appears that the rate at which unemployment is increasing is decelerating, even though we know that couldn't be further from the truth.
Posted by: Ironman | Jul 3, 2008 4:20:05 PM
I encourage everyone that has been turned down for any type of loan....to go and use quickstubs . com and be the boss of your own company making the the dollars that is determined by you! Never get turned down for a loan again!
Posted by: manny | Jul 3, 2008 4:33:48 PM
Thank goodness it only went through once!
Jake: Thanks for clarifying how you determined the percentages. There's still an issue with the chart in that each of the percentages has a different base. The numbers may be okay on their own, but putting all of them side by side on the same chart is not. Since they do not share the same base, comparisons that would naturally be drawn between them are nearly meaningless. Very different things are being conveyed by the individual data points.
Which I believe is Dave in Seattle's point! And who it would seem has a very good suggestion....
Posted by: Ironman | Jul 3, 2008 4:58:06 PM
Ironman-
This just doesn't make sense. A simple example shows why:
*A man moves from China to the U.S.
*U.S. population growth > China population decay (the denominator is smaller for the U.S. because the U.S. is ~1/3 the size)
These can still be (and are) analyzed side by side (so are GDP, inflation, etc...) because the importance is the relative size of the YoY change, regardless of whether the denominators are different.
Posted by: Jake | Jul 3, 2008 6:02:15 PM
Unemployment rate is 5.5%.
I think we're just regressing to the mean after two huge bubbles this past decade. I doubt it effects folks' lives as much as it affects their psyche.
~~~
BR: Wow! Anyone else have any responses to this?
Posted by: muckdog | Jul 3, 2008 7:26:00 PM
Steve B,
You didn't flunk macro, that's exactly what's going to happen.
Awful.
Posted by: ben | Jul 3, 2008 7:57:31 PM
Jake: Not the best example, as there is no denominator.
Also, your point is partially valid, but only within a given data figure. As a good practice, you shouldn't mix other types of data in the same chart.
Let's take GDP. Here, you will start running into trouble if you compare things with different bases side by side. China, for example, may have a 10% GDP growth rate in a given year while the U.S. may have a 2% growth rate. China may look like it's growing at 5x the rate of the U.S., however the gross amount represented by that 2% though might dwarf that represented by China's 10% since the base for the U.S. is much, much larger. Directly comparing the two growth rates doesn't generate a lot of insight - they mean two different things for both countries.
But, if you want to do a direct comparison between the two countries, you would switch to a common base - GDP per capita, for example. Then you have a more valid means for direct comparison. The same principle applies for unemployment data.
Posted by: Ironman | Jul 3, 2008 8:58:49 PM
[[BR: Wow! Anyone else have any responses to this?]]
I think everyone was probably going to ignore it because shooting him down is about as easy as that children's game where they have to put the cube through the square hole, cylinder through the circle, etc.
But since you asked...
[[muckdog: Unemployment rate is 5.5%.]]
[[I think we're just regressing to the mean after two huge bubbles this past decade.]]
[[I doubt it effects folks' lives as much as it affects their psyche.]]
Man people losing their jobs means that many people suddenly have less money means that many people are relegated to a lower standard of living means that it affects (note spelling of the verb--effect:noun; affect:verb) both lives and perceptions dramatically.
Contagion (which doesn't exist in the United States according to her leadership/Central Bankers) resulting from job losses will be felt by everyone in the economy, including you, muck d-o-double-g
Posted by: barrymccockiner | Jul 3, 2008 9:27:15 PM
Grammar retraction: His use was correct. I misread.
-5 points for me failing 5th grade level reading.
Posted by: barrymccockiner | Jul 3, 2008 9:31:57 PM
I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings on a holiday...but just checking out some charts to kill time while watching a ballgame...we are soon going to see the bankruptcy of at least a couple of homebuilders and some pretty large banks. Furthermore nobody has even mentioned Freddie and Fannie lately...Freddie down almost 9% today to new lows. They both could be headed for bailouts.
Posted by: Steve Barry | Jul 3, 2008 10:02:40 PM
